User talk:Ahunt/Archive06

Starck AS.70

Mr Hunt - thank you once again for 'sorting me out' - I still have difficulties with the rather rigid Specs formatting!! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!! I've just tried to make a small change to the specs - and they are 'all wrong again' - what's going on?? I will 'keep off' for a bit whilst you do your good work! RuthAS (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I have them working now! That is a good template, it just isn't very "damage tolerant"! - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting the article (and me!) out. It's looking much better now!! RuthAS (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

hi just a quick thank you for the offer off help and the welcome. Curtis8712 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beech Starship

If you have a moment or two, would you mind taking a look at the Starship article and let me know what you think? I've made a bunch of changes that I hope are an improvement. I know there is more to be done but I think I've done all I can. Thanks! Edit: I forgot to mention - I'm happy to make any changes that you suggest. I'm just out of ideas on ways to fix the development section (it's completely unrefed). Thanks again. X96D74828 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let me have a look! - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It reads fine, looks accurate from my knowledge of the program and reads well. It just needs some references! - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Do you think I have enough references for everything that's not in the Development section? If Development is the only part that needs more refs, should I move the refimprove tag to that section? Also, I'm not totally satisfied with the Design section. Although all five bullets are true, and three of them are refed pretty well, notability (or not) is a matter of opinion isn't it? I feel like there's a better word than "notable" that could be used there but I can't come up with anything. Thanks again... X96D74828 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two unref sentences in the design section could probably use refs added, if you have them. I agree that the Dev section is the only one that really needs more refs, so, yes the tag can be moved there. I can do that! Notability has specific meaning in the context of Wikipedia, meaning that reliable third party refs support the included text. As you note though, not everything that is true about a given subject is worth including in an encyclopedia article and that is where editorial judgement comes in, backed up by consensus if it gets disputed. Perhaps you mean "important" or even "non-trivial"? - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In the Design section, the lead-in ("notability") and third and fifth bullets are pretty much as I found them when I started working on the article. I really don't like the third bullet as it is right now. I think it either needs to be removed entirely or reworked into something more accurate. On the fifth bullet the notable fact is the first GA application of a glass cockpit, not the Proline 4 avionics. I think I have refs for both so I'll take a stab at them.
Style-wise, the lead-in in the design section and several other places in the article refer to the Starship in the past tense. Is that proper? X96D74828 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The refs would be great if you have them! Feel free to rework that bullet and if it doesn't seem worth mentioning just remove it - we really try to avoid trivia here! As fas as tense goes, on WikiProject Aircraft we have a general consensus to use present tense for aircraft types if any examples are still flying and past tense if they are only sitting in museums, except where that grammatically doesn't make sense (i.e. You wouldn't say "X museum had one Starship" if they still do.) Hope that helps? - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is much improved over the last month. I suggest reducing the list formatting. Convert them to paragraph form (mentioned at Talk:Beechcraft_Starship also). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Some Starships are sill flying so I'll switch the past tenses to present as I find them. X96D74828 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Global Explorer

Hello Mr Hunt! I've added a new article on this type, but still cannot cope with the Specs section! Please could you be kind enough to 'sort me out' again. Thank you. Perhaps some day I'll learn. The website I've linked to quotes the name "L'Avion" - which is just the nickname for the individual aircraft - not the type's correct name. Best Wishes. RuthAS (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

G'day from Oz. I should really be in bed (0230 here) but instead I'm editing Aircraft in fiction. Thanks for the Wikiwings, much appreciated! See ya. YSSYguy (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too!

Thanks for the Wikiwings - my contributions pale in comparison with yours, but the wwings are all the more appreciated for that reason. Cheers! --TraceyR (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Leopard Userbox

Hi. I don't mean to question you, as you are for more experienced on Wikipedia than I; but why does it have to comply with US laws, when I am in Italy? PopMusicBuff talk 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's offices and servers are located in Florida and they will get sued for copyright violations in Florida. Please just make your own "X" - it is much easier! - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

Hello, Ahunt. You have new messages at Rlandmann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Animation - Gedit page

Hi Ahunt,

I noticed you removed my animation from the Gedit page. I assumed that would probably happen .. any ideas on how to make it a viable piece of content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn51200 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links you posted fail both WP:EL and WP:SPAM, so I don't see anyway to add them. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


West Coast Air Update

Hi Ahunt,

The reversal of changes to the West Coast Air website is unfortunate. I understand your devotion to wikipedia being correct. However, you deleted changes created by the seniour management at west coast air. A quick look at our website (linked on the page) would show that the wikipedia site is horribly out of date. We will be continuing to update the page as necessary to reflect our current operations, status, and history of OUR company.

Thank you, Eric B. Flight Operations Coordinator - West Coast Air —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.134.20 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the IPs latest changes and left them a note about conflict of interest and that they should not edit the article but comment on the talk page. Most of the change was unsuitable marketing stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I just got a call asking to fix this. Makes sense. We'll update the logos, etc., to reflect our current Ops. I didn't know what the changes were.

Cheers, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.134.20 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Your Pictures

Hi Ahunt,

I was recently contacted in regard to a photo you've uploaded on wikipedia. More specifically, it's this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmericanAviationAA-1YankeeC-FPPY.JPG

A reader of mine saw that I'd used a photo of yours and was hoping I would have information to contact you so that she could talk to you about the photo. She's organizing her husband's retirement party and is very interested in the picture as her husband flew that plane at that airport early in his airline career. I think she wants to ask if you have a higher resolution photo you could send her for printing out.

I gave her the registration info for the current owner and a possible phone number, but if you could contact me at stevenlong4289@gmail.com I would be very much appreciative.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slong1464 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gouge for SNAs

Ahunt,

In 2000 I gathered all the flight school gouge I could and put it online on a small site called navygouge www.navygouge.com. I have recently taken that gathering of gouge, added a great deal more information and built it into a wiki that can be edited by current SNAs as time goes on.(my first time building a wiki) I added some information to the naval aviator page on the ASTB (because it was not covered in any detail) and a link to the ASTB gouge on navygouge. On the "gouge" page I added an external link to navygouge since I feel that all of the open source, public domain knowledge that is in the navygouge wiki is valuable information for flight students.

You deleted the entries I made and called them spam. The idea behind adding the links to Wikipedia was that potential students will search the internet looking for information on flight school. Navygouge has a significant amount of gouge that is very helpful to SNAs for every step of flight school. How do I get all that gouge tied into the right place on Wikipedia?

Thanks,

Sumner Navygouge (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy: your can't - your website fails to meet the stand for inclusion at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Since you own the website please also see WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were trying to look out for the interests of new Student Naval Aviators. Thanks for the insight into the Wikipedia community. Navygouge (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that Wikipedia is a general-use encyclopedia - its mission does not include looking out for the interests of special interest groups, like new US Navy Aviation students, in fact, being a general encyclopedia it is specifically opposed to representing or advertising for special interest groups. The bottom line is that you added links to your own website to Wikipedia articles to advertise your website and drawn traffic there, which is in conflict with Wikipedia policies, so the links can't stay. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O-2

I was holding off on moving the O-2 Skymaster because of sourcing. IMDB isn't a reliable source. The trivia stiff etc is reader submitted. If we do find a good ref, I have one that states Danny Glover did a lot of his own flying for the movie. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have better refs please do go ahead and add them! - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt's bad faith

Ahunt you are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt you are showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. Ahunt You interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.

In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you Ahunt.--Stoneacres (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Stoneacres was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks as a result of this campaign. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N211TH

While it is the theme of the moment - just a note on File:Indus Thorp T211 Sky Scooter N211TH 01.JPG the FAA says it is a 2005 homebuilt and it is a Sky Skooter, which also written that way on the side of the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the FAA says it is is is an amateur-built from 2005, but check the name of the builder: PATTISPAU, RAM - the founder of IndUS Aviation! It does also say it is a "T211 SKY SKOOTER". All a bit odd. Since it is serial 003X I think it was a prototype for IndUS. All I can say for sure is that it was on display as part of the IndUS booth at Sun n Fun 2006. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was only half right then! Some of the on the FAA reg have msn like 001S and other like 308D0358 not sure what the difference is, perhaps some are kits and some are factory-built but normally kits are registered with the owner as builder not the company! Still dont understand why somebody else has the T-211 Type Certificate. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FAA lets home-builders pick their own serial numbers (TC does the same) and so builders may use their plans or kit serial number (if the manufacturer actually serial numbers the plans or the kits - some do, some don't) or they can pick a random number. It is common to see "builder's initials+001" or something similar! I will fix the file name on that photo, though, just to eliminate confusion! - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective on de-orphaning

Actually, I am interested in creating a web of articles relating to World War I flying aces more than I am de-orphaning. The web in progress is rather a largish task (1,000 to 1,200 articles). The need for de-orphaning comes about because I haven't moved from article to article along the natural links between articles (i.e., between squadrons and aces, between aces who were friends and/or served together, between aces who fought one another, etc.). Given the amount of time I can waste comparing my list of 1,000 or 1,200 names against the backlog of tagged articles, I hoped for a more efficient and prompt solution.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master list already exists: List of World War I flying aces. Because it grew so big, the list had to be sub-divided into nine sublists. Each sublist contains a couple of hundred names, for a total of about 1,850 aces. About 1,000 to 1,200 are notable--i.e., they have been honored with an award. About 800 of these have been covered by an article, although most are stubs. Therein lies the problem: all the articles have a link from a sublist. However, links from their squadrons may or may not exist. Cross-links from other aces may or may not exist. Heck, I didn't even know about the requirement for three or more links until recently.

Anyhow, I have hundreds of orphans in this project. Maybe it's better I don't know the gruesome details.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau Park Article

As I had agreed a few months ago, I am submitting suggested changes to the Gatineau Park article.

The article might be edited as follows (3 last paragraphs before Sites). The first paragraph is a slightly tweeked version of the current one. The second paragraph ties in the legislation issue in tight summary. And the last paragraph is exactly the current one. I believe it flows nicely and fits with criteria set out by you and MNelson.

"Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. It has attracted considerable criticism for its policies on park boundaries, land ownership and management, as well as for allowing residential construction in the park.

"To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009.

"Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it."

--Stoneacres (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Gatineau_Park#Suggestion_for_adding_2_paragraphs - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion needed

As MNelson requested, I have placed references in the proposed modification to the Gatineau Park article. I would like your opinion/approval/disapproval/suggestions on the matter. --Stoneacres (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of BUMMMFITCHH

An article that you have been involved in editing, BUMMMFITCHH, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUMMMFITCHH. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this be replaced with an article entitled acronyms in aviation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Sky Ventures (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna 210

Hi, just regarding the Cessna 210 page, thanks for your feedback. A few comments in response:

Sorry for the accident edit - it was not mine a rushed cut and paste, but was just trying to improve things, as to only have one accident, and albeit a seemingly "tabloid" style accident is also to me very "un-wiki" like. C210s have a reputation for handling accidents, eg loss of control and systems errors etc - I will take some time to go through NTSB myself and try again.

As for publicising our books - yes sure, as a publisher everything you do is aimed at publicity, but as for the implication we are using wiki as a vehicle for publicity, this is definitely not the case. I do see from skimming quite a few comments here you may be a little over zealous about informative data appearing as advertising or not?

With regard to my edit of the C210 page, I felt to cite a book in bibliography that has a small section on the C210is surely interesting, but would it not be more beneficial to mention the two (and only two) books that have been written specifically about the Cessna 210? The Cessna 210 Training Manual published by RSV being one and the other being CPA's Cessna 210 Buyers Guide. It is a page about the C210 after all, and I would have thought this is a useful "wiki-type" fact? The bibliography (now removed) was the only reference I placed to the book, can you perhaps further help me out a little here, what defines bibliography versus reference citation? Would be greatly appreciated if you consider to include the two books mentioned, I would not dare to do it myself now!

I felt the model history was lacking a little - still is, as with the other Cessna pages, which I will look at sooner or later if I can, and all of the info posted from Airlife's book is also in our book, further the original source of this information is the Cessna Maintenance Manuals, where you will also find references for the most of the specs too, although some come out of the OMs and POHs. So in summary, the article edits are provided to improve the quality of information provided, the fact that it refers to a product I sell I feel was included in an unbiased way and inconsequential to the facts. On this regard it is a shame the operator and fleet numbers info from some time back was taken out and what remains presently, in my opinion is very advertorial. To list a only a few specific operators publicises these, numbers of C210s and broader information about fleets would be better, this is presently a little misleading.

Happy to send you a book for verification purposes, if you wish.

Lastly - really great work you've done. Wiki is a really amazing place, which I could commit more time to contributions, and my apologies I am terrible with programming, I'd send you a star if I knew how, more constructive advice is much welcomed.

Better get on to accident stats - good for a much needed blog anyway, important topic and really not enough found about it on the searches. Danielle Bruckert (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna 172

The prototype Cessna 172 was N41768 which msn 612 it looks like it first flew on 12 June 1955 [1] which is the date we have for the flight of the modified 170C, so presumably from that point it was considered a 172. Interestingly the 170C is listed in Simpsons GA book as N37892 msn 609! On another page about prototypes he has 609-N37892-170B 610-N41783-172 612-N41768-170B all as clear as mud, they were obviously messing about with the different aircraft to get it right! MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is confusing enough. Given the lead time to certify a light aircraft design back then, especially as it was bing represented as a new version of an existing model, then the 12 June 1955 date is reasonable leading to certification on 4 November 1955. Incidentally I did go to my large central library today and checked Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft. The 1955-56 edition doesn't mention the 170C or 172, the 1956-57 edition does have the 172 in it and describes it as a nose wheel version of the 170 with a square fin, but neither than nor later editions give the first flight date. No mention of a 170C there. That figures! - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna 142

Interestingly the experimental list also has msn 617 N34258 as a Cessna 142 (Model 150) presumably a prototype for the 150 series but we make no mention of it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the nosewheel version of the 170 was already called the 172 and the nosewheel version of the 180 was already the 182 it would make logical sense that the nosewheel 140 would be the 142. It could be that the company wanted to make it seem like an all-new design, hence the non-related 150 designation. Of interest N34258 is today assigned to a Cessna 177B! - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Google

-- iBen (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:GrummanAmericanTigerEmblem02.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GrummanAmericanTigerEmblem02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:GrummanAA-5ALeapingCheetahEmblem.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GrummanAA-5ALeapingCheetahEmblem.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WingTip04.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WingTip04.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WingTip05.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WingTip05.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Cessna177BCardinal02.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cessna177BCardinal02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CanadaFlightSupplement20Jan05.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CanadaFlightSupplement20Jan05.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't upload this current version of the file, so I have no idea where it came from. Try User:Devastator who uploaded it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CanadianAviationExpoPhoto01.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:CanadianAviationExpoPhoto01.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NTF: Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CanadianAviationExpoPhoto02.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:CanadianAviationExpoPhoto02.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miniplane photos

In a word -- Wow! Many thanks for the great shots that of course lift the article immensely! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Plan PF.204 Busard

Hello again, Mr Hunt! Have added a new article on the Max Plan PF.204 Busard French sporting aircraft, but have once more hit problems with the specifications layout. My last new article went OK - but have slipped up again this time! Would much appreciate you 'sorting me out'. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Buzz

Hey. I saw that you've been active on the Google Buzz article. If you get a chance, could you take a look at this edit? Seems to me like it's an advertisement, but another set of eyes is always helpful. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unindent

I never saw {{unindent}} used before. Very nice....where did you find it? Barte (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I assume {{outdent}} works....

the same. <Show preview> yep. Barte (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macchi M.70

Thanks for the Wikiwings for the Macchi M.70 article. Actually, I don't view the article as really complete because (1) I have no operational or production information on the aircraft, and (2) based on its design (installable floats, folding wings), I suspect it was either intended for naval use or was actually placed in naval service, but my source did not mention that. So there us much more to find out about this aircraft. But regardless, I appreciate your very kind attaboy. Mdnavman (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Attack page?

User talk:64.252.144.152/Threats - kinda seems that way! - BilCat (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd behavior, but doesn't break and rules. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Essex Airport

Listen my man, I work there my father is the airport manager. And I don't think it looks right to say our sources arent correct. Umm.. So why are you telling me to remove it? It was all writen by people that work there. And we want to keep it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.154.118 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but on Wikipedia relaible sources are required as per WP:V and "It was all writen by people that work there" is prohibited under policy. Either cite reliable sources as required or it will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

AHunt - you have really contributed a wealth of fantastic photos and content. Can you help adding photos of turboprop counterinsurgency aircraft? I have noticed that wikipedia doesn't have photos or links to the prototype Beechcraft AT-6, Boeing OV-10X, or the Air Tractor 802U. This is my interest area, and I hope to add a good deal of personal knowledge of these aircraft, I just haven't figured out how to upload photos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Brendan (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome OS Security

Glad you liked the edit. I may still have at it, and It may be worth looking at other reports--this got "widely reported" given how arcane the subject. I agree that the article was worth citing, especially as we didn't have anything on security. Re: the developer switch, I'm no longer actively running Chromium OS (instead running Ubuntu on a faster netbook), so no way for me to check out, but it is interesting they're talking about a hardware lock--that seems extreme, and I'm unclear why they would bother. My impression was that Google had already made clear that specialized devices would be required because Chrome OS's use of a firmware layer (as in a specialized BIOS?), but this seems to go a step further. There are also reports of a business version, presumably more secure, coming out in 2011. Maybe we should include? Barte (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would that wold make sense to add. Go for it. If I have time in the coming days, I'll try to look at other press reports on the same topic to see if we're missing anything. Barte (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Freenet

Just an FYI: I've nominated National Capital Freenet as a featured article. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: T-6 Texan II ref list

... changed the reflist on this article from two column to one with the note "2-column mode unusable". I am just wondering if you are using Google Chrome for a browser (as I am)?

No, I typically use SeaMonkey, Firefox or Opera, and, on rare occasions, Microsoft Internet Explorer. The problem is that some inexperienced or lazy editors put in very long URLs to external references without using the {{cite web}} template, and if these end up in the left column of a 2-column reflist, they overlap and obscure the text in the right column, making it unreadable. I've also seen some editors use 3-column or even 4-column mode, chopping the lines of each reference into two- or three-word fragments, making it very difficult to read and wasting a lot of screen space due to the column spacing. The browsers I use seem to handle the columns as the designers intended, but if a new visitor arrives and is faced with the overlapping screen text mess, they'd most likely have no way of knowing what was wrong, much less how to fix it. Rather than spending 30-60 minutes per article fixing the mess, I often take out multi-column mode and just leave it at that. It's not as fancy-looking, but at least it's readable. Fortunately, articles that have this problem are a small minority, perhaps one in twenty. —QuicksilverT @ 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on your feedback

hi Ahunt,

Thank you for your feedback on the Hawker Beechcraft page. I have a few questions regarding your edits.

1. Can I upload a new logo to the page? Why/why not? 2. I noticed the founded date was not changed. Do you need a specific reference from the company or third party to change this? Please advise. 3. The history that is currently posted only reflects a few years of the company's history, not it's complete historical founding and background. I'd like to add more information there. Do all of the additions need third party references or can we site the company website? 4. I want to add a historical time line to this page as the information is available in various online destinations. Do I need references for each individual event or could I source the company website where the list is also located in its entirety? 5. I also noticed the company employee number is not accurate. How can I update that?

Thank you for your help! I appreciate the guidance. Ericacenci (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Ericacenci[reply]

Thanks for the response. Your answers make sense and I completely understand that there can't be bias or opinion in any way. I'm just trying to figure this out so that there is complete information available. It just seems like more content could be added. I've spent most of the day digging through references and will follow your references and suggestions to suggest and talk through possible ways of updating any information. Thanks again for your assistance with this process. I do appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gazda Helicospeeder

Phew!! I'd literally only one minute before made my first amendment, and a certain gentleman jumped in !! Seriously, I've now added an image of the lugubrious machine - 300 mph indeed - Gazda must have been a showground salesman! At least this time I got the specs about right - what little there is on this device, that is. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky R-6 Hoverfly II

Hello Mr Hunt! Thank you for adding the "Under construction" tag - which I'd not heard of before - another lesson learned! Have just finished my 'facelifting' of this article - so it's 'open season' now! RuthAS (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The A7 speedy criterion does not apply to schools

You recently incorrectly tagged SMK Green Road for A7 speedy deletions. You should be aware that schools are specifically excluded from an A7 speedy, to quote the criterion, it applies to "An article about ... an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" (my emphasis). Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted vandalism of my photo contributions to Wiki Commons

Hello Mr Hunt! A few hours ago lots of threatening red tags appeared on my Wikipedia Commons page, placed there by Ferbr1, who may be a Spanish editor. He is threatening to delete quite a lot of my earlier images - and this will may well result in the loss of hard-to-replace images in Wiki articles. An example is the Cierva C30 photo. Each of my images was correctly described as 'own photo' - but this does not satisfy Ferbr1, who has been cheeky enough to ask my age. I felt I had to say I am over 70, which is true, but he should not have taken that insensitive line. I cannot cope with his onslaught. To prevent loss to Wiki of about 20 valuable images, please could you help - as you have very kindly done in the past on several occasions! He'll get roun to the Schweizer image next! With many thanks, and best wishes. RuthAS (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hunt Ferbr1 has come back to my Commons page again in a most insulting manner. His latest de-constructive missive appears below the second 'prohibition' notice on the Cierva Autogyro G-ACUU. I do not know how to remove the tags and really the burden should be on him to do it. This is upsetting me, but I will try not to let it put me off contributing further new articles and images. RuthAS (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your message which crossed with mine sent a few minutes ago. I always use the CC 3.0 unported licence. Indeed, when very occasionally I've omitted to enter it, there's always been an immediate 'warning flag' and I've rectified the slip before submitting the image. So I'm puzzled as to what's upset this ungentlemanly fellow! Would very much appreciate your usual kindly help! RuthAS (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I much appreciate you sorting out the (non-existent) mess! I s'pose he didnt believe anyone could keep going as long as I have - 'touch wood' as we Brits say! But, he was naughty in inferring that the images were not mine! How could I be so specific with the C.30A shot as 'Rearsby 3 June 1951', if I was not there, Mr Ferbrl1 ?! Its nice to be part of the Wiki aviation community alongside such nice helpful gentlemen as yourself! To say thank you, I will submit a new aircraft article in the next day or so. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custer Channel Wings

Hello Mr Hunt! I've just noticed that TSRL and I started articles on Mr Custer's way-out designs on the same day - the most amazing coincidence! How on earth does it happen . . . ? TSRL better covers the CCW-5's technical aspects - that area is my 'achilles heel' I'm afraid. I'm best on the historical and operational side of things. The two pieces are different and both 'add value'. Thanks for improving mine. There's been no re-occurence of challenging my earlier images, touch wood! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have discussed the Custer article situation with TSRL (see his page) and in essence, we both agree with your view that each contribution starts from a different angle, and compliment each other, rather than conflict. The fact that we used different sources also resulted in that outcome. I am perfectly happy for you to have used the CCW-5 images on 'his' page. Images on Wiki Commons are there for that purpose, after all! RuthAS (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - nav boxes are beyond my capabilities - so thanks for your kind help! RuthAS (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'lay persons guide' to the nav box - but will probably ask for your kind help! T think that the existing Custer articles cover the CCW-1 and CCW-2 sufficiently, so I do not propose to 'eliminate' the red links in the nav box to those designs by composing what would essentially be duplicating/overlapping articles. RuthAS (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Boss, will do as directed/hinted in the next few hours - but it will be a fairly slim-line piece!! Will have to use one of the existing CCW-5 photos to illustrate it. Regards RuthAS (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promises, promises! Have decided to carry out a little more research to improve the CCW Corp article. Have found some extra material - mainly on planned but unfulfilled programs. "Watch this space" - but dont hold your breath! RuthAS (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Hunt I've now added the requested/suggested article on the Custer Channel Wing Corporation - hope you approve of it! Regards, Ruth RuthAS (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr Hunt. Glad you approved - but thanks for the improvements, along with Nimbus. I had not picked up the interesting Archive piece on the CCWs - so thanks for adding the link. Too detailed for incorporation in Wiki articles, but the link is very well worthwhile. RuthAS (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-26/B-26

In the entry you put under this aircraft today, the middle paragraph is about real aircraft, really being excavated. Did I miss the fiction part of it? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...

With all respect Ahunt, I never meant to get involved in personal attacks with Nightshift36 until he started making "negative" remarks about my good hearted attempts to add references to the Latin Kings page. He stated in one of his edits " apparently, some editors, despite being asked to cite things properly, think they are special and expect others to do it for them".

If that isn't a personal attack against me I don't know what is. It's one thing to tag a page, and it's another thing when you start to make smart remarks and assumptions about a person's character and intentions. I felt as though he was trying to be a bully because he obviously has more experience than myself in contributing to Wikipedia. I even added the sources to satisfy his request, and he still had smart remarks to say: "apparently, you expect other people to do the work for you. Some would characterize that as rude". Although I have very little experience, I practically built that page on my own without saying one negative word to other users. I may not know all the tricks, but just as I learned how to message other users in the past couple days out of necessity, so will I learn how to properly cite references for that page.

Hopefully through this experience, Nightshift36 would have learned something as well.

--98.193.22.77 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Whitespace

I use both IE & Firefox, widescreen and square, and see fields of whitespace. Maybe it's an IE thing?. Jaydec (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. I just went back through some of the changes in Firefox, a little ws, but certainly not as bad as IE is showing. I haven't bothered with Chrome yet, but might look into it under the circumstances. Thanks! Jaydec (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuport IV

Hello Mr Hunt! Have added an article on the Nieuport IV of 1911/12, but cannot get the Specs layout right! Would appreciate your help ... thanks RuthAS (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for correcting my faux pas! Am now reluctant to delete any 'surplus' sections of the template - always causes a mess when I do! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings

Thank you! - The Bushranger (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu - removing ellipses

This is really a minor style issue. However, I am not quite clear why you removed the ellipses in the section detailing release life-cycles. The reason I put them in in the first place is that it was already a long sentence and by using ellipses I was able to break it up and make it flow better, make it easier on the eye. By removing the ellipses and rewording, it not only makes it longer, but also makes it a more difficult read, something I was trying to avoid. Maybe you felt the uses of ellipses overly dramatic, but it seemed a much less awkward read with them in. Maybe hyphens would have sufficed. Anyway, my objective was to make it easier to follow, especially considering that a significant number of wikipedians use English as a second language.

You also deleted the semicolon following "Specifically;" in the following sentence. I would settle for a comma, but I don't think it reads correctly absent any punctuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.101.252 (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. My intention in my edit was to make the sentence more readable. According to Keys to English Mastery ellipses are only used in English to show that text has been omitted from a quote. Unless this was a quote and material was removed, then some other punctuation would be more suitable. Semi-colons are only used to separate independent clauses in a compound sentence that lacks a coordinating conjunction, in front of a coordinating conjunction between two independent clauses where the clauses contain commas or between list items, where those list items themselves contain commas. The use of a semi-colon to separate the word "Specifically" from the independent clause that follows is not a proper use of a semi-colon. I do agree, however that the wording can be improved, so let me see if I can accomplish that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Art Project and 216.185.17.162

Ahunt,

Why did you call this edit from user:216.185.17.162 vandalism?

If you go to the article/person (Dox Thrash) he added, it says:

"Thrash is most widely known for his work on the Federal Art Project from 1936-1939."

What is with the "get-a-rope" approach?

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was in the middle of a string of vandalism edits by that same IP user. If it wasn't a vandalism edit then thanks for fixing it! - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of PA-16 and PA-20 pages

I don't understand why you removed the ShortWingPipers.org link the the Piper Clipper and Piper Pacer articles. That site is a free and open secondary resource for the Piper Shortwings. In fact, it was started by the son of the person whose Piper Clipper is used in the Clipper article, and who offers more free advice and help than anyone else. You haven't removed the ad for Miss Pearl, an adapted Piper Tri-Pacer, but you remove information links. I would like to ask "why?" Thanks, Joe

Joe Gerardi (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because external links in article text violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please illustrate how it violates those guidelines? I believe that it actually conforms to them: it offers a resource not found anywhere else, the site is not a commercial site, and if in fact it does indeed violate the guidelines, then the Type Club website does as well and should also be removed. In fact, ALL type club references should be removed, because they charge an annual fee to join. - Joe Joe Gerardi (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the links were placed in the text they violate WP:ELPOINTS "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". I agree that the type club should not be listed in the External Links sections and will remove it from there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Award

Awesome! Much appreciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

Sorry about that. I'll watch out, henceforth, for those... Mark Sublette (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat! I am just formatting refs in Aircraft in fiction. If you have another ref that would be great. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear professional userbox

Thank you so much for the userbox you created! I really appreciate your help and time! I look forward to teaching myself how to create userboxes, as that could be a fun hobby. Gilawson (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Capella Javelin

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Short final

While I don't disagree with your recent redirect of short final, and I don't know anything about the topic, shouldn't the target page at least discuss what "short final" is, even if it is only one sentence somewhere? It's odd that "short final" exists as a redirect, but when I get to the page I still don't know what it is. — Timneu22 · talk 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The main problem is that the article title leads to nothing more than a dictionary definition and an imprecise one at that (there being no accepted definition of "short final" in the aviation world) - it doesn't even belong in an encyclopedia. Then there is the problem of the original article text being on a completely different topic than the title. I can WP:PROD the redirect if you think that would be a better solution? - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I patrol new articles, and didn't know what to do with "short final"; that's why I was watching it. Prod is probably the correct action. — Timneu22 · talk 13:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate you not being able to figure out what to do with it, with the title and the text on different subjects it didn't make much sense. Okay let me PROD it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prod'd it, thinking you forgot or something. Didn't realize you had already removed a prod. Sent to RFD. — Timneu22 · talk
I think we both posted to each other's pages at the same moment - Okay I see you have sent it to RFD - that will do the trick! - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I had already stubbed it, but saw your WPA note and figured your redirect idea was better, so I went ahead and did it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Off2riorob speedied it, but I felt I had to restub the article pending the outcome. Thank you for being on top of it and alerting me. Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Station Zebra

Ooh! Didn't catch that I was pulling from a Wiki mirror site... Mark Sublette (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, that is how collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]